It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I am leaning Mark Carder's method and enjoying it. I love how precise and faithful the technique is to shape and color.... and the results are indeed deserving of the label "realism". But I am having a bit of a conundrum surrounding how to treat patterns if they are (or as they become) smaller than the brush I am willing to use,
How best to capture realism where the subject has very clear detail, be it texture, or patterns, etc, which are smaller than the brush I am willing to use. For example a pattern which recedes into the distance, or newsprint on a nearby newspaper, or bare branches (actually the finer and finer twigs as one get farther down the branch) on trees in winter... There comes a point at which the size of the detail is such that it may no longer be possible to directly present it faithfully... in shape and color... nor would I want to do so (too many tedious strokes with a small brush).
What are some of your common approaches to this problem (other than giving up on the subject)? When or how do you decide to paint with randomish part strokes implying pattern and using the original colors of the pattern (say black and white) versus transitioning to painting with at in between and eventually the average color (eg say grey) where things are still discernible to the eye but really look like the average color on the scale of the brush head?
Any techniques, ideas, thoughts, or advice would be appreciated.